Current weather

BP Exec: Alaska should change oil taxes

JUNEAU — The president of BP Exploration Alaska on Wednesday called the state’s current oil tax structure “a going out of business policy,” saying that without changes, investment by his company will stay flat, at best, in the short term and be scaled back in the long run.

John Minge is in Juneau, making a pitch for more sweeping changes to oil taxes than the Senate has proposed. He spoke with The Associated Press Wednesday.

Under the current tax structure, known as Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES, there is a 25 percent base tax rate and a progressive surcharge triggered when a company’s production tax value hits $30 a barrel. The idea, when the law passed in 2007, was that the state would help companies on the front end and share profits with them when oil flowed and prices were high.

But the industry says the surcharge eats too deeply into profits when oil prices are high and discourages new projects and drilling. Industry has spoken in favor of Gov. Sean Parnell’s plan, which goes farther than the Senate plan in cutting taxes but is still merely seen by Minge and other industry officials as a good first step.

The Senate Finance Committee plans to spend at least two weeks on the oil tax issue. On Wednesday, Revenue Commissioner Bryan Butcher said Parnell’s plan, a non-starter in the Senate, isn’t the only way to meaningful change that will cause companies to invest more. But his suggested improvements to the Senate bill, SB192, were all elements of Parnell’s proposal.

Critics have called Parnell’s plan a corporate giveaway, with no firm guarantees the companies will invest any more in Alaska if their taxes are slashed. Parnell has countered by calling the Senate plan a giveaway, saying it cuts taxes but not enough to change investment behavior.

Minge said he’s not wedded to Parnell’s plan but wants to see a bill of the same overall magnitude.

BP and ConocoPhillips, two of the North Slope’s main players, have talked about $5 billion in new investment — gross, among companies — if tax changes on the order of what Parnell is proposing are enacted. The other major player, Exxon Mobil Corp. also must agree under terms of the Prudhoe Bay operating agreement but has so far been publicly silent on the figure.

Minge said there’s never been a problem getting all the companies to agree on economic projects. He said $5 billion would be just the start.

That level of new investment won’t happen under ACES or the Senate plan, he said.

“We will lobby against a tweak to ACES because we don’t believe that’s the right thing for Alaska,” he said. “We believe that’s a giveaway ultimately. It’s up to our elected officials to make a choice.”

Some lawmakers see progressivity as being out of whack; others see ACES as working as it was intended to work.

Minge said the aim of ACES seems to be to “rip out as much money” as possible from the industry. An overhaul of ACES now would be the best thing for the state, he said.

“The state of Alaska and the producers are in the same business: We’re in the oil business,” he said. “We make billion-dollar investments early, and we take our returns over many years. So in the short term, the state does pretty well under ACES, but it’s a going out of business policy.”

If changes aren’t made, in the long term, “we would have to start to adjust, and take the necessary steps, which would include starting to shutdown infrastructure, not working on certain projects. So we would definitely react,” he said. “But in the short term, at best, I think we’d stay flat” with investment.

He did not define short term or long term.

“What we need is a tax policy that creates a sustainable, 50-year future,” he said.

Minge wants to see progressivity bracketed, so that different portions of the production tax value would be taxed at increasing incremental levels. The Senate Resources Committee, in crafting the current version of SB192 earlier this session, rejected efforts to bracket.

Minge also thinks the base tax rate is too high. That issue isn’t addressed either by Parnell’s plan or the SB192.

There has been talk during Senate presentations about tax breaks for the more difficult or expensive to-get-at oil, like heavy or viscous oil. Minge said that’s picking “winners and losers” and doesn’t help companies now.

“We need tax reform on the base business to allow us to be more economic,” he said. “We know how to pick the winners and losers. We know how to pick the right investment at the right time. That’s what we do.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Go somewhere else and drill if your profit margining calculations aren't quite up to snuff on $100 plus a barrel of oil.
What about future generations of Alaskans? The value of oil can only increase in time. What's the big rush to give in and give it away? Why give in to mega corporations where less than record profits is viewed as failure?
Have a nice day.

The oil companies aren't leaving right now, but the contract companies are. Without the support of the contract companies, not a lot gets done. The Energy expended on return of investment is shrinking and we can either pull our heads out of the sand and realize it, or we can go the way of many other fields.

The oil companies aren't leaving right now, but the contract companies are. Without the support of the contract companies, not a lot gets done. The Energy expended on return of investment is shrinking and we can either pull our heads out of the sand and realize it, or we can go the way of many other fields.

It would be nice if those out of state workers would leave a little of their cash here. How about a state income tax for out of state workers? I'm just irked because I overheard a couple of them bragging at the airport, "I haven't spent a dime in Alaska." what a yuk
Have a nice day.

I don't think BP and Exxon had a defense of rebels attacking their pipelines and facilities relentlessly. If you want to stop spills, stop using oil! Not a very logical comparison as your article reflects these attacks.

BP and Exxon do not have a " defense of rebels attacking their pipelines and facilities relentlessly." here in Alaska.
That relates to a big savings in itself. Huge as a matter of fact. No worries here in Alaska. It's like another big tax break.
The price of doing business in Alaska just went down according to the above cited articles about working abroad.
As an aside, I find this article published in our Anchorage Daily News totally relevant to this subject of our governor giving money to big oil corporations.http://www.adn.com/2012/03/23/2389142/sean-parnell-is-still-working.html
Have a wonderful day!

We are not competing for oil dollars with Nigeria or Saudi. We are competing for those dollars in North America. On last check, there was never a terrorist related act imposed upon the oil fields of North Dakota, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, California, Calgary, Fort McMurray, Edomonton and a host of other locations in North America that produce oil. We need to at least have a competitive tax and royalty structure with the other oil producing regions of North America. Currently, we are taxing production at a rate that exceeds even California. Our geographic location does not warrant a higher tax and the logistics of the Prudhoe Bay and outlying fields is far more costly than any of the aforementioned oil producers which in itself is a deterrent to oil production.

As for Parnell and Exxon, I can sympathize with Ms Moore as I too have close ties to Prince William Sound and the Commercial fishing industry. However, Parnell was one of hundreds of lawyers that worked for Exxon. Many people went through the adversities imposed upon them by the spill. I being one of them and many, many of my friends. Some dealt with the stress in ways that ended their lives. Some made there way through the troubled times and again found happiness and prosperity.

Shannyn states that becoming a "spillionaire" was like "making a deal with the devil." I believe that deal was made far before any oil hit the waters of Alaska. The population of Alaska remained fairly constant from 1900 to 1950 (about 75 - 100 thousand). When oil came into play, the population doubled to 225,000 (Swanson River / Cook Inlet) and it nearly doubled again in the 70's and went up 30% in the 80's. Most of us are here in one respect or another because of oil... Because of Alaska's riches and expanding economy. We made the deal because we desired the wealth that oil brought and regardless of what the oil companies may have told us, only a fool would assume there was no chance of a catastrophic event involving oil. We believed them not because we thought they were telling us the truth ... We believed them because we WANTED to believe them.

Again, if we want fewer spills, we need to consume fewer barrels of oil!

You too, have a good day and as always, thanks for the spirited debate.

Just our fair share, nothing more, nothing less. Kenai kid you bring some facts representing your side of the debate. Kudos to you.

What I think the vast majority of Alaskans have a big problem with is the simple fact that big oil has been making record profits quarter after quarter for many years.
If they were barely making a profit, I'd side with you in a new york minute. However this is not the case.

What is the truth is that big oil is the richest corporations in the world. They provide salaries and stipends to their CEO's that rival the budgets of most states.

I am not against anyone or any company making a profit. They should and we need to provide a state tax structure that keeps it fair for both parties.

When big oil wants tax subsidies from Alaska amounting to 18 billion, I have a probelm with that. We as a State have given into big oil on so many occasions that we now elect ex big oil lobbyists and attorneys as our top officals.

We want big oil in this state but are tired off seeing the huge profits and the greed just continues. When we constantly see the CEO's golden parachutes in the hundreds of millions, the private jets, big frivilous expendures, tying up litigation in the courst for decades for the worst oil spills in the history of mankind, and then they have the balls to demand more tax breaks is more than most of us can bear.
The other fact is we have oil in the ground. That oil will be worth more in the next decade than it is now.
The other fact is capitilism is at work along with the law of supply and demand.
When big oil finds it is no longer profitable for them to exploit our natural resources, history has shown that other companies will gladly step up and be happy to habethe opportunity to make record profits.

The time for susidizing the richest corporations on this planet are over. Thanks for the spirited debate.

I honestly feel that the state should retake all leases on non producing land and hire Alaskans to drill on them. Then send to oil to our own refineries and then the finished product to locally owned/independent filling stations and sell it for less than three dollars a gallon no matter what price the speculators have determined it is worth. The oil belongs to the citizens of Alaska so why should they be held hostage on the prices they have to pay for it!

Considering there is $25 billion in oil that flows through the pipeline ANNUALLY ($105 p/bbl X 660K bbls p/d X 365 days) and the current state tax and royalties consume 47% of that figure and 19-25% is consumed by the Feds, it's hard to imagine that $18 billion figure unless you are talking in multiple years.
Second: If an oil corporation makes record profits, does that mean every field it operates is producing at record profits? My point is, if Walmart (which IS the biggest corporation in the world) is making record profits, does that mean Walmart in Kenai is making record profits? Sears operated at a profit last year ... why did Sears in Kenai close??? Prudhoe Bay is fast approaching its equalization. Meaning, the energy invested in recovering the oil, is soon approaching 0 net return. To curb that trend, #1 oil still in Prudhoe is "hard oil," (not easily harvested) and will need investment for technology to harvest. #2 New finds will need to be drilled. This is expensive for a many reasons. a) the permitting process is long and expensive b) drilling and bringing a field on line takes time c) smaller fields (300 mmbbl pd or<) are not economically feasible without incentives as it will cost millions in infrastructure to connect it to Prudhoe and the TAPS.
Your argument for capitalism is ... well ... loose! It will still cost a new player the same amount of investment capital to keep oil in the pipeline. There have been small players such as ENI and Pioneer on the slope, but none have the capital to purchase the existing infrastructure. ENI owns 0% pipeline and is in fact a company on pace with Exxon and BP and is only slightly smaller than Chevron.

Cheapersmokes, once you drill those leases you are talking about, how do you get OUR oil to OUR own refineries? Alaska doesn't own a pipeline from the slope. Your idea is completely socialist and flies in the face of capitalism. Furthermore, the state would sell the oil on the open market to sustain government operations and to invest back into the fields on the slope that they now must contend with. Not a good idea!!!

Finally, norseman; thanks for logical and sound debate without name calling or belittling comments that are often found here. I look forward to more discussion on this and other topics.

The 18 billion tax subsidy is the figure that Gov Parnell announced to the legislature just last week.

Your examples of Walmart, Sears etc differ greatly than what we are talking about with big oil. For one thing, we as a state do not subsidize ANY of those companies.

We have been giving tax subsidies to oil companies for over 100 years. During that time, they have become the wealthiest corpoprations the world has ever known.

Giving government handouts to the richest corporations in the world is a total slap in the face for the rest of us businesses.

Our country has become controlled by corporations. They lobby our officals with billions of dollars, provide billions to PACS that basically "buy" elections.

There are many other business in this state, small and large, that receive zip in any form of a tax subsidy from the state. If they wish to stay in business, they need to stand on their own feet. Isn't that what capitilism is all about?

As a country and a state, we need to STOP subsidizing oil companies period.

"For one thing, we as a state do not subsidize ANY of those companies." We don't tax them one thin dime! Tell me how we "as a state" subsidize the oil industry. Maybe I'm missing something here, but the state does not tax Sears, Fred Meyers, Walmart, Safeway etc... seems to me they're not subsidized, but exempt!

It's truly refreshing when someone brings more than "I heard" or "I think" to these blogs and actually post some form of supporting information.
One thing I would like to point out to Norseman is this paragraph from your link:

LITTLE OIL

Most oil companies are not as big as Exxon or Chevron. Mid-sized, independent producers include Devon Energy Corp and Chesapeake Energy Corp. These companies get even more generous benefits than the giants.

Indeed, the Center for Tax Justice finds Devon recorded a 5.5 percent three-year average tax rate and Chesapeake had an 8.1 percent average over the period.

"What is absolutely critical is the profound distinction between little oil and big oil - the smaller companies receive pretty generous breaks," said economist Alan Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

For example, the so-called percentage depletion allowance lets these mid-sized companies take an annual 15 percent deduction for depletion of oil and gas resources in the ground, instead of deducting the decline in value over time."

This statement made in the above article is arguable:
"Bob McIntyre, president of Citizens for Tax Justice, said the fact that oil companies still drill in high-tax countries like Saudi Arabia proves they will keep drilling if their U.S. taxes go up. 'Their foreign tax rates are very high, and they don't leave Saudi Arabia,' McIntyre said."

What Bob doesn't tell you here is that Saudi is producing, on average, 9,500,000 CLEAN bblspd verses about 5,000,000 bblspd over an entire continent containing several states with varying production and levels of oil quality. Saudi Oil has a nil to no water cut in its oil. Prudhoe Bay is mostly water as a most fields in North America. If you have 9 million bbls in a concentrated area of nearly refined quality oil, it's easier to make money on sheer volume and a decreased refining cost even if the tax on production is considerably higher.

If nothing changes, nothing changes. I heard that many years ago and it really applies to this topic.

"Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising," our government offcials stated.

"Investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; in fuel-efficient cars and trucks and homes and buildings. That's the future. That's the only way we'll break this cycle of high gas prices that happens year after year after year as the economy is growing."

We absolutely need to transition ourselves to sustainable and renewable forms of energy.
Alaska has the opportuntiy now to become a leader. We can dictate to oil what the taxes will be. Not them telling us.
Just look at last week when gov parnell meet privately with the ceo's of big oil. No one else was invited. They told the governor what they wanted and he being a good lobbyist for big oil, then told the legislature.

Let's not continue with this same ol approach. Lets move to a new future where we are energy independent.
One way of getting there is to maximize Alaska's share of our resources.
Let's stop the handouts to big oil and use that money from the taxes to subsidize ALASKA.

I agree with your thoughts on transitioning to renewable energy. However, that is something that will not be done in a matter of 10, 20 or even 50 years. The transition will be fast if it is completed in the next 75 years (key word "completed"). We are simply to dependent on it for our every day needs, not simply transportation, but textiles, fertilizers, foods and pharmaceuticals to name just a few.
As for the tax dollars being increased, that is the objective of this debate. Will revenues be increased over the long term by giving a little in the short term? Or will we just need to extract the last little bit of oil and take 120 billion short term dollars? Or should we invest in long term tax revenue? That is the precise point of this tax debate. I invite you to read the above links that have been posted.
As for them dictating oil taxes ... they don't! We DO make those decisions. However, either way, there may consequences to our actions. It is a matter of striking a fair and equitable balance that fits both the oil companies business model and the states revenue needs. That my friend is the trick!!!

I am not sure which one of us will prove to be correct when it comes to sustainable, renewable energy transition.

As far as how long it would take is completely dependent on pain. Pain is the best motivator for change. Not many will change anything until pain is a factor.

I think our country could do it in 5 years or less. My rationale is based on what we had to do in WW2. When the war started, we had a few ships, a few men training with wooden guns, and had just come out of the worst depression ever.
With co-opperation, motivation, and total commitment, we as a country rose to the mission and the end results are now history.

It is going to take that kind of thinking to move us out of this energy situation we are now faced with.

America is capable, it is just that we as a nation havn't had enough pain yet. We need to act now, not 10 years from now.

That is why I and alot of other Alaskans are oppossed to giving big oil anything but a fair and equitable amount.
Just imagine if we kept that 1.8 BILLION in state instead of giving it to big oil.
1.8 BILLION per year to get Energy Companies to manufacture Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geo Thermal in our state. Look at the jobs that would be created. Look at the CLEAN and renewable energy we would have. This is where we will be someday, we just cannot afford to keep delaying it by continuing to make the same mistakes over and over.

We all agree that we have a symbiotic relationship with oil corporations. We all agree a transition is necessary. We all agree that all parties need to get there fair share. You are correct in just deciding what that amount is. In the end, it is always about the money.
With some of our past legislatures, it only took a couple thousand bucks to obtain their vote. Some others have a much higher price.

Where does Capitalism stand when a Totalitarian Govt. comes into play, as in One World Order? What going to be the expence recuired by everyone to do anything related to ALL forms of commerce then?
Just wondering, as it's almost here with this chosen ones dream acts and every day manipulations designed to destroy and control everyone, not help anyone.
It's a FORCED new hope & change to believe in and bad news for those that reject is spreading as seen daily in all news events. It's a new religion of peace for all, kind of like Islams forced peace, but only to those that submit.

I'd rather take OUR chances of running OUR oil & gas companies, rather than having others do it by their FORCED demands of lower Taxes or else, but thats just me.

Contained in my previously posted link on calculations there is this quote.
"Bob McIntyre, president of Citizens for Tax Justice, said the fact that oil companies still drill in high-tax countries like Saudi Arabia proves they will keep drilling if their U.S. taxes go up. "Their foreign tax rates are very high, and they don't leave Saudi Arabia," McIntyre said."
Cheers!

What Bob doesn't tell you here is that Saudi is producing, on average, 9,500,000 CLEAN bblspd verses about 5,000,000 bblspd over an entire continent containing several states with varying production and levels of oil quality. Saudi Oil has a nil to no water cut in its oil. Prudhoe Bay is mostly water as a most fields in North America. If you have 9 million bbls in a concentrated area of nearly refined quality oil, it's easier to make money on sheer volume and a decreased refining cost even if the tax on production is considerably higher. A facility in Prudhoe Bay now produces a total of 190 thousand bbls a day ... 35,000 oil, 155,000 water. Lifting costs sky rocket due to additional equipment needed and maintenance on that equipment. Comparing the tax structure in Saudi and here is not realistic nor is it logical.

Bob needed to do some more research:
"In general, Saudi law requires that all foreign and Saudi companies pay a tax on profits earned in the country. Companies with joint-ventures having at least 25% Saudi ownership are exempt from income tax for a period of ten years"

and then there is this pearl of wisdom:

"In May 1993, the Minister of Finance and National Economy stated that all foreign companies which are actively involved in the capital expansion of various industrial projects in Saudi Arabia will be exempted from paying taxes on profits made in the Kingdom. Foreign investors are to be encouraged to reinvest their profits which accrue to them from joint-ventures. The Minister went on to say:
'The prime objective of this decision is to encourage foreign participation in industrial projects and to acquire foreign technology. Such exemption will require that foreign capital be used for the development of Saudi industries and it will be applied for a period of ten years from the date a joint company begins its industrial production.' "

But I have children that I feel are entitled to Alaska's oil too!
I agree with Norseman and his renewable energy angle. Whatever justification I hear in defense of big oil corporation's tax breaks is falling in my deaf ear(s).
Pack up and get out, Exxon, BP, and Shell!
We all know they aren't going to. So let's get our share out of the deal. Don't let our big oil mouthpiece governor use his position to cow us residents into submission.
Pretty much sums it up but i'm pretty sure I'll have to come back for clarification.
Have a nice day!

*When priced at $60 a barrel, the income stream from a barrel of oil is allocated as follows: State government receives 42%, federal government 20%, industry 38%. At $75 a barrel, the State receives 47.1%, federal government 18.5%, and the industry keep is 34.4%. At $85 a barrel, the industry keep falls to 32.4%.

*An analysis by the University of Alaska Anchorage showed the oil industry supports as many as 110,000 jobs in Alaska (one-third of the state’s workforce), including funding for three-quarters of state government jobs. The report does not merely count the number of jobs that exist in each industry and its support sector. It estimates how many of Alaska’s 357,000 jobs rely on cash flow created by a specific sector.

kksalm, I agree with you that our children are entitled to Alaska's oil. But long term gains would far out weigh short term losses. I am willing to listen to both sides of the equation and try keeping both of my ears tuned rather than hearing simply what I wish to hear. Two ears are necessary. I haven't seen any arguments here that support the current tax structure other than the oil companies are making record profits on INTERNATIONAL investments. That does not mean they are making sustainable profits HERE.
Look at corporate profits as if it were your own investment portfolio. Your bottom line may have grown over all, but you have some stocks in your portfolio that are marginal or very close to break even. If it doesn't make significant contributions to your portfolio, you stop investing in it and you invest in something that has both long and short term potential. All I am saying is why can't Alaska be competitive in their tax structure with the other oil producing provinces in North America?

Forbes: Alaska's energy tax structure is among "Worst in the World"

" Forbes believes that oil prices will not stay above $100 per barrel forever, and suggested that a 'sensible' tax structure will attract more capital and result in more long term revenues to Alaska."

Obviously you have made up your mind without looking into the tax structure of the other oil producing provinces in North America. We don't have to give up the house ...we simply need to remain competitive. Please, research more than the companies profits and research the tax structure of the other oil producing provinces. If you wish, study foreign producers as well.
Truthfully, you have brought nothing to the table to support the current tax structure other than "we want our share." What is that share? Currently at $105 per bbl Alaska takes 49.1%, Feds take 18.9% and the producer takes 31%. Alaska and the Feds have no risk, the have no liability in a spill and they have no investment in the venture. Saaaawwwweeeeet! But you knew all of this already.
Simply read the links I provide and I sincerely invite you to supply links that support your position. I promise I will read them!!!